Infallibility of Church?

[John_Martin]

Are you going to proclaim the tax collector couldn’t be a Christian

Jesus told the Catholic Church, the disciples, how they could tell who was Christian or not, and that it was their job to tell who was Christian or not, who was Catholic or not, who was saved or not.

Jesus told them to go and preach the gospel; if anyone heard them and believed them, these who believed were believing himself, Jesus.
Then he said, “Whoever believes you when you tell them about me, and then asks you to baptize him, and you do baptize him, then this is the one whom you shall regard as saved, such as Philip will soon encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch asking to be baptized and then riding away happy because Philip has baptized him and told him he is saved, told him he is now one of the people of God, now a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven, now a Catholic, now a brother of Christ. Philip will do that. He will baptize this Ethiopian; he will give him the Holy Spirit; he will grant him citizenship in the kingdom of God; he will confirm him as saved, as Catholic.”

Jesus told his disciples how to know who is saved, how to know who is a member of the people of God, how to know who is Catholic.
They must never try to figure out who has spiritually experienced Jesus, but must trust that no one would be baptized unless Jesus wanted them to be baptized by his disciples.
“Whomever you baptized when they turned to you in faith in me you shall regard as saved, no guessing about what’s going on in their hearts, in their spirits.”

Kind of disagree here on the latter part. To me you aren’t a Christian if you have not spiritually met, seen Jesus.

No. Did the church baptize you? Then you are saved, then you are Christian.

John Martin

 

[MT1926]

Not sure I said at exact moment of rebirth, but it may be so. At any rate then when , day 2 , day 7 or 50 , when ?

It sure seems like you did at the beginning of this conversation when I said someone can still be a Christian yet actually have trouble “seeing Jesus”…

Kind of disagree here on the latter part. To me you aren’t a Christian if you have not spiritually met, seen Jesus.

So which is it? Is the person a Christian at the exact moment of rebirth or do they not “officially” become a Christian until they have “seen Jesus”? Which I would like to point out other than repeatedly hammering down that “seeing Jesus” is more than emotional and intellectual you really haven’t defined what this actually means?

I do not think new birth is like original birth

Sure seems Jesus compared being born again to original birth and not to marriage.

but that level is at the beginning, just like marriage and the wedding day.

I think the problem you are having is because your are thinking about it using this marriage analogy. It doesn’t work because technically the wedding day isn’t the beginning. It’s the day you meet. The two of you date for a while to reach a personal relationship with each other. Then you get engaged and then married. That’s not how the Christian life works. We don’t get to see if we like a personal relationship with Jesus before we commit and then if we decide not to commit there is no consequences. Sorry I think that is a bad comparison that is causing you to see this situation incorrectly.

The CC church has not interpreted too many scriptures definitively, so again, not sure "my " interpretation of these verses are contrary to any CC definitive teaching on said verses.

I’m not sure why you keep bringing the Catholic Church into this? I’m just trying to speak to you one on one here, about your accusation. Your the one who made the claim…

Kind of disagree here on the latter part. To me you aren’t a Christian if you have not spiritually met, seen Jesus.

Fine you can disagree but I’m going to call you on it. I asked where this teaching comes from and why I should believe your teaching is authoritative? All you have given so far is your opinions and defended them by saying…

Again, you have not shown me any “authoritative definition” that I run contrary to.

Seriously? Why would you even ask this? We both know you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church so why would I try to shove some teaching down your throat? When I say authoritative I am asking because authority is important to me. I’m not saying I have authority and you don’t I’m simply asking why I should believe yours.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Well please don’t prove me wrong, and maybe you are saying I am not wrong.

I’m sure that is what you believe. But let me reassure you I am not trying to prove you wrong I am asking you why I should believe you are correct when you state…

Kind of disagree here on the latter part. To me you aren’t a Christian if you have not spiritually met, seen Jesus.

Let me just finish by saying even if someone where to try to prove you wrong…see the post above from @John_Martin …we both know you wouldn’t accept it anyway. So why would I even try? Which is the reason I was trying to get you to show evidence for what you claim?

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

No. Did the church baptize you? Then you are saved, then you are Christian.

Yes that is a doctrine, that no one is arguing against, as per my post at the beginning of this dialogue;

“So it is not a game breaker from the problem we have been talking about. But, all churches teach of a new life in Christ, and Christ in us, as we are baptized into His body. We all are to have that beginning point, the real McCoy in us. We have quite an authoritative teacher in us who can discern all spiritual (name removed by moderator)ut He allows, even ordained, to come our way.”

 

[mcq72]

He will baptize this Ethiopian; he will give him the Holy Spirit; he will grant him citizenship in the kingdom of God; he will confirm him as saved, as Catholic.”

Yes, and my additional point is that God will put His Spirit in us , to bear witness to our regenerated spirit, that we are His child, that He is in us , and we be in Him

 

[John_Martin]

You may have missed something said by the Ethiopian - “How can I, unless someone guides me?”
This Ethiopian did not want his own thinking - he wanted an Authority to guide him; he did not want himself interpreting what may or may not be the Holy Spirit, but what someone sent by God would make plain to him. (Even you seem to be trying to explain something to us Catholics, rather than being confident that the Holy Spirit would himself do what you claim and explain it to us inside us without your explaining. So you act as a messenger without being sent.)

Being Catholic means you like being with an Authority sent By Jesus Officially to tell you what is what, so you are then believing what this Authority is Authorized to give you. This is a real live human, with documented authority, standing in front of me, not thoughts that come and go in my consciousness.

Believing private opinion is what people do when they do not accept authority (“Sent Authority”, not an elected or hired leader).
The word “Heresy” refers to holding to opinion rather than “Orthodoxy” which is following an Authority.
Do you like Mass and Confession because you analyzed them and you believe they are good things to do and make you feel good, or do you stay away from these “Catholic things” because you have analyzed them and within yourself concluded they are nonsense, or do you like Mass and Confession because the Real Live Official Authority from Jesus called you to Take and Eat, promising you his Body and Blood, and because the Authority from Jesus was given the power to forgive you ‘in persona Christi’?

What the Holy Spirit does in us is enlighten us to recognize the bearer of Good News (official royal news sent via a messenger from our King) that this bearer is telling the truth.
The messenger says, “You are now His Child”, and from the hidden darkness of the soul, we find a thought appear in consciousness, “Ah, what a gracious word you, messenger, have delivered to me, that I am a son of the King, with my Lord Jesus; blessed are your feet, real live messenger to my hearing”

 

[mcq72]

So which is it? Is the person a Christian at the exact moment of rebirth or do they not “officially” become a Christian until they have “seen Jesus”?

I said what I said without a timeline as to when exactly one is born again, but for sure it is a happening, with a before and after. Some people it is immediate , others a more drawn out process.

But yes I stand by my witness that the gate is Jesus,at Calvary and risen. You ask what is “seeing” Jesus in these settings, and am a bit surprised for one understanding the mysticism in “seeing”, partaking of Jesus in the flesh at holy communion. So I hope you understand it is a spiritual “seeing”, mystical if you like. I mean God , even Jesus is a Spirit amongst us, and we are regenerated spirits are we not? That is how we see Him, even eat Him, as described by His Words and deeds, even other people’s words ( the preacher, teacher, even a council, even other saints), all painting us a picture. So though He is a Ghost , He can be seen by such words, like dust falling on an invisible man, making him appear. So this my opinion of the “mysticism” behind our beloved doctrines on this matter.

No one can see the Son unless drawn by the Father, and no one goes to the Father but thru the Son. Quite simple.

Now I know you love Catholic authority so all I can say there a plenty of scriptures and saintly writings that show nothing happens in a vacuum, not even what I described above. For sure there is Israel and now the church, being pillars of truth, even preaching it, even thru written Word.

I will not choose sides as to sectarian divisions, save that indeed God has used and blessed the Body thru the Catholic Church, and thru the Orthodox Church, and thru many Protestant churches. All three have the doctrine of new life in Christ, and are rich in a “mystical” experience in Christ amongst its members.

 

[mcq72]

Sure seems Jesus compared being born again to original birth and not to marriage.

You misconstrue my words. Of course spiritual birth is needed just as we had a fleshly birth. Of course there are similarities and I only said don’t think it is like fleshly birth where we remember nothing of our birth, even the first few years of life…is that what you suggest, I mean I don’t remember assisting or cooperating with first birth.

The marriage analogy was only used to demonstrate the conscious decision and event to submit to a marriage (even future marriage) to the betrothed that you have met , seen (in the spirit if you please)

We both know you don’t accept the authority of the Catholic Church so why would I try to shove some teaching down your throat?

That is your paradigm, that if one doesnt accept every single last iota of doctrine and C teaching you don’t accept any of it .

Again I really feel my posts here are quite in alignment with C teaching. To be sure if you were Orthodox , or Lutheran , or Baptist, I would say the same things. I have been careful to make my points just succint yet quite deep enough to be profoundly universal.

I should really then only be asking anyone, regardless of denomination, or church, see if it isn’t so with you and your church, with you and your experience in Christ, as I have mystically ( for lack of better word) described mine.

Beyond that, I have listed authoriteis, such as some scripture, saying also similar experiences of other saints, even Catholic saints. I have spoken of authority that Christ speaks is in one testimony, then two, then even of a congregation/ church. I have also spoken of authority , of the spirit in you that is Christ, to bear witness, nay or yay.

 

[mcq72]

You may have missed something said by the Ethiopian - “How can I, unless someone guides me?”
This Ethiopian did not want his own thinking - he wanted an Authority to guide him; h

Neither of us missed this, just one of the many points we could go over. No one denies the "preachers"role, that faith, even new life that we speak of, cometh by hearing, and that by the Word of God. For sure Philip was that preacher, an enlightened Jew to assist in understanding Jewish scripture, to a gentile.

Even you seem to be trying to explain something to us Catholics, rather than being confident that the Holy Spirit would himself do what you claim and explain it to us inside us without your explaining. So you act as a messenger without being sent.)

I have shared such sentiment in one of my above posts, :

" I have also spoken of authority , of the spirit in you that is Christ, to bear witness, nay or yay."

Of course if what I say is false, disregard message as if not sent from the Lord…give the nay, but please disregard an auto nay because I am labeled Protestant, or because one is beyond missing any sent message.

Being Catholic means you like being with an Authority sent By Jesus Officially to tell you what is what, so you are then believing what this Authority is Authorized to give you. This is a real live

Yes that is Catholic, but non Catholics are not orphans in the sense that indeed we are in a Body, we do not live in a vacuum, and we do have tradition and boundaries in the flesh (brothers and sisters, teachers, elders ,bishops)and in the Word.

Believing private opinion is what people do when they do not accept authority

Well, it only takes being wrong to be in “private opinion”, and that can happen under authority or not under it. But for sure we need good Shepherd and elders.
And of course, lo and behold we lay upon thread topic, can an authority get it wrong, as in OT covenant God shephered.

“Ah, what a gracious word you, messenger, have delivered to me, that I am a son of the King, with my Lord Jesus; blessed are your feet, real live messenger to my hearing”

Agree on the messenger, even Writ even church, all things St. Augustine expounds upon in his Confessions. And as you and I have already mentioned, so does Augustine , that of one more element, Christ in us, that teaches us.

 

[John_Martin]

For sure Philip was that preacher, an enlightened Jew to assist in understanding Jewish scripture, to a gentile.

Again a missed point: you want a spiritual encounter with Jesus internally before you call a person a Christian.

Did you not see that it was the Holy Spirit that delivered Philip to the Ethiopian in person, physically, not spiritually, to talk and explain physically, to baptize physically, to give the Holy Spirit by his words and touch with water. Philip was not an enlightened Jew; he was an Apostolic Authority which the Ethiopian took seriously in his authority as an official of the Kingdom established by God, having the authority to Grant citizenship in the Kingdom of God and to grant the Holy Spirit, which was now infusing the soul of the Ethiopian with His light of Grace, of infused Virtues, and he was happy, singing on his way home, singing with in his heart to his Father in Heaven just as St. Augustine was singing to God throughout his “Confessions” (which, coincidentally, I happen to be reading at this moment, although I do not believe in coincidence).

One is granted New Birth in a materially physical event whereby the name Christian is granted officially; only then can one talk to one’s new Father and new Brother, by their One Spirit, as did Augustine, in his position as an Apostolic descendant of the Apostles.

I talk personally to Jesus and deeply, as deeply as did Augustine. But I am obedient to, I hearken to, my Apostolic teachers concerning who I understand my Jesus to be. If I refused to hear them, I am refusing Him who sent them, and would be denying this new life they are handing to me as they breathe on me and say, “Receive the Holy Spirit; I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
To that I cannot say, “Well and good, but I still have to wait until I figure out how to meet Jesus spiritually before I think anything is real, before I consider or admit that I am really a Christian…”
No, I will not talk back to the baptizer who baptized me; I will sing instead like the Ethiopian.
To understand is good, but to be visited by the messenger of my LORD and baptized is better - it is the messenger’s understanding of me as a Christian that matters, because he is the one who tells the Lord, “This one belongs to you.” (and even so, understanding has never been withheld from me).

John Martin

 

[MT1926]

I said what I said without a timeline as to when exactly one is born again, but for sure it is a happening, with a before and after. Some people it is immediate , others a more drawn out process.

OK I think I understand where you are going now. Did we have a conversation a while back about Baptism? I can’t remember but it’s coming to mind for some reason. If memory serves you wouldn’t agree that one is “born again” in Baptism. Is that a correct assumption? Therefore from your point of view I would guess you would say just because someone was Baptized doesn’t mean they are a Christian. You would probably say they shouldn’t be Baptized until they have “seen Jesus”.

All I can say is I wouldn’t agree if this is the premise.

It just seems to me that we are skirting the line of OSAS here. Which gets us to someone proclaim that they have “seen Jesus” and that they are a Christian. Then 10 years later that person becomes the worst of the worst and everyone says "well he never really “saw Jesus” and was never really a Christian. Which would mean that the only possible explanation here is what he thought he saw was a purely emotional and intellectual experience.

The Marriage analogy was only used to demonstrate the conscious decision and event to submit to a marriage (even future marriage) to the betrothed that you have met , seen (in the spirit if you please)

I understand why you used that analogy, I was just trying to help you see that it doesn’t work. Some people get married and then discover, many years later, that they never really “seen their spouse”. If they choose to accept the spouse for who they are and continue to work to make the relationship better. Does this mean that they were never really married in the first place.

In the same way say someone has an emotional experience, thinks they saw Jesus and turns their life around. Five years later as they grow in their faith they realize that it was just an emotional experience and it took the past five years to finally be able to “see Jesus”…does this mean that person wasn’t a Christian for the first 5 years of their conversion?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Now I know you love Catholic authority so all I can say there a plenty of scriptures and saintly writings that show nothing happens in a vacuum, not even what I described above.

Seriously? I keep saying I don’t want to talk about Catholic Authority and you keep bringing it into the discussion?

I’ve already admitted that you don’t accept it? So why do you keep bringing it up?

We’ve been down this road time and time again. So let me try to explain this once and for all…

The statement that I love Catholic authority is not true. It’s like telling me I worship Mary. So just let your misrepresentations go.

Now the statement that I believe Jesus left us an authority is true.
The statement that I believe without an authority anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want, is true.
The statement that you have no way of knowing if you are being taught the truth, if your teacher can’t prove they were given the authority to teach, is true.

So basically, I would say I believe with all things in life there always has to be an authority. On a daily basis 90% of the time that authority is me. However, having all of that authority allows me to see that I wasn’t given the authority to claim that the Holy Spirit has given me authority over scriptural interpretation.

That’s all I am saying here. If I don’t believe I was given the authority why should I believe anyone else was given the authority, without first asking for their evidence.

Sure you might not agree with the evidence the Catholic Church has given, over the centuries, but to me it is nonsense to reject the one willing to provide evidence and freely accepting the one who says to take their word for it.

If I walked up to you today and said I am the guy in charge of all of your retirement accounts. Would you sign on the dotted line before first asking for my credentials? Of course you wouldn’t. That’s why it blows my mind how many people (Non-Catholic and Catholic) who are willing to put their eternal soul on the line without ever checking the credentials of the one who is teaching them.

So in a nut shell I love authority period? Sure right now I follow Catholic Authority but that is just because no one else is even willing to prove they have authority. If someone would present me the evidence I would be willing to give it a look.

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

Being Catholic means you like being with an Authority sent By Jesus Officially to tell you what is what, so you are then believing what this Authority is Authorized to give you. This is a real live human, with documented authority, standing in front of me, not thoughts that come and go in my consciousness.

Believing private opinion is what people do when they do not accept authority (“Sent Authority”, not an elected or hired leader).
The word “Heresy” refers to holding to opinion rather than “Orthodoxy” which is following an Authority.

What the Holy Spirit does in us is enlighten us to recognize the bearer of Good News (official royal news sent via a messenger from our King) that this bearer is telling the truth.

Protestants also believe in an authority. They believe in Apostolic authority, but not Apostolic Succession. When the Apostle Paul spoke, he spoke with the authority given to him by Christ. The Scripture teaches that the Church was “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Ephesians 2:20). To a Protestant, the Scripture is the inspired Word of God–not man’s words, but God’s words, God-breathed, and thus infallible. And there is ample evidence to the fact. So one cannot say that the Protestant lives on the basis a non-evidential, self-proclaimed authority.

Also, the Protestant does not believe in some kind of “private authority.” It considers Scripture to be an “objective” authority. The Jews heard the voice of God at the Holy Mountain, where Moses received the law. But after that, they placed the “written authority,” contained on the tablets of stone, in the Arc of the Covenant.

But then you have the question of authoritative interpreters. The Catholic Church has placed this responsibility in the hands of what it considers to be the successors of the Apostles. But the Holy Spirit is given to all believers, and Christ told us this Spirit, who would be sent in his own name, would lead us into all truth.

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:13). I do not see any intermediary in this passage. The Holy Spirit is given directly to all believers, not just to supposed successors of the apostles. In fact, this is the internal evidence of our being in Christ. “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Romans 8:16). If we have the Spirit, we belong to Christ. As the Apostle said, “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Romans 8:9).

Continued in next post…

 

[Glenn]

Continued from previous post…

So it the Spirit indwells all believers, and the Spirit leads us into all truth, then why is there so much division. First, I think we must understand that existential truth is not just doctrine, but a matter of a practical, lived reality. There is significant division within both Protestant and Catholic circle. Simply because the Catholic Church is undivided organizationally, does not mean that it is undivided on a practical level. The same kinds of divisions that affect Protestantism also affect Catholicism.

Who is sent to bring the message of the gospel? Is it just the apostolic successors? Scripture teaches that is simply a preacher. “How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” (Romans 10:14). When the apostle John tried to stop someone who was casting out demons in Jesus’ name, Jesus replied, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you” John 9:50).

Yes, the Church is the bearer of the Truth. But the truth is not entrusted to select individuals. The gifts of the Spirit are distributed, as God sees fit, among all of the members of the mystical body of Christ. It is the division among Christians, not separation from the Catholic Church, that diminishes the truth. Paul cautioned the Corinthians to resist dividing into various factions, because we all need one another to form the whole body of Christ, and therefore the whole Truth. “To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills” (1 Cor. 12:7-11). This gift of discernment, which Paul describes as the “ability to distinguish between spirit,” could also be expressed as the ability to rightly interpret. This gift is not the exclusive possession of apostolic successors and it is not passed on by the Church, but by the Spirit himself. Christ, through the Spirit, runs his Church. Sometimes, however, he allows us to go our own way, to test us, to make us know that we need to depend wholly upon him and not ourselves. We are being led into the whole truth, but the whole truth will not be fully known until Christ’s work in us, his work of sanctification, is complete.

 

[goout]

mcq72:

Now I know you love Catholic authority so all I can say there a plenty of scriptures and saintly writings that show nothing happens in a vacuum, not even what I described above.

Seriously? I keep saying I don’t want to talk about Catholic Authority and you keep bringing it into the discussion?

Pardon me for interrupting, but this issue is the end point of objection because it confronts us with a difficult truth. “God is God, and we are not”.

And who is God? Look at Jesus Christ.
Who is Christ? God in the flesh, fully human.
What does that mean for us? We must give our assent and obedience to the whole Christ, not just the Christ we imagine.

The whole Christ participated in the human condition. He left his mission to human beings, and established something very human: an institution which is just as incarnate as he is.

And that confronts us with our relationship to other human beings, some of whom have the charism of authority. And that is very demanding of us.

 

[Gorgias]

Protestants also believe in an authority. They believe in Apostolic authority, but not Apostolic Succession.

So, when the Creeds were developed, in the first centuries of the Church, they were developed without authority?

But then you have the question of authoritative interpreters. The Catholic Church has placed this responsibility in the hands of what it considers to be the successors of the Apostles. But the Holy Spirit is given to all believers, and Christ told us this Spirit, who would be sent in his own name, would lead us into all truth.

So, we’re back to where we were, 100 or so posts ago. If the Holy Spirit is leading Protestants to all truth, then why do Protestants believe mutually exclusive doctrines and point to Scripture and the Holy Spirit as the ones who substantiate those conflicting beliefs?

Simply because the Catholic Church is undivided organizationally, does not mean that it is undivided on a practical level. The same kinds of divisions that affect Protestantism also affect Catholicism.

No – they’re different on a fundamental level: a Catholic who deviates from the Church’s doctrine is said to be deviating from the truth; two Protestants who disagree on doctrine are both claiming to have the truth! That’s a significant difference!

 

[mcq72]

Thank you.

Correct and why I posted we do not operate in a vacuum.

 

[mcq72]

So, we’re back to where we were, 100 or so posts ago. If the Holy Spirit is leading Protestants to all truth, then why do Protestants believe mutually exclusive doctrines and point to Scripture and the Holy Spirit as the ones who substantiate those conflicting beliefs?

Well, this has been around a long time, this interpreting God’s Word differently, since Eden. So this is not just a Protestant problem, and certainly tbe CC is not free from the problem, though she tries to proclaim herself as a solution to the problem.

When disagreement arises between two Catholics groups, sometimes a consensus is reached and sometimes not. Then the two Catholics go their separate ways, maybe excommunicating one another, maybe changing their name or having it changed by the other, so on and so on, till you have what have today.

So an “institution” does not solve the Eden problem. The problem existed in other God shepherded covenants as it apparently does in this covenant. And God’s will always prevails despite ourselves.

 

[Gorgias]

Well, this has been around a long time, this interpreting God’s Word differently, since Eden.

It should’ve been resolved by the appearance of the Incarnate Son of God, though, no?

So this is not just a Protestant problem, and certainly tbe CC is not free from the problem, though she tries to proclaim herself as a solution to the problem.

Right. The problem, though, is that individuals want the right to interpret as they see fit. The Catholic Church asserts authority over interpretation, by virtue of Christ’s proxy to Peter. That’s a substantially different claim than breakaway groups make. After all, they had been under the umbrella of the Catholic Church and decided to leave; as a result, one of the absolutely necessary things they had to do is assert a rationale for why leaving is reasonable or even possible.

Then the two Catholics go their separate ways, maybe excommunicating one another, maybe changing their name or having it changed by the other, so on and so on, till you have what have today.

If one of the “Catholics” is the Church, then yeah, I see your point. However, that would just mean that the two entities are “The Catholic Church” and “the person who left the Church.”

BTW – Catholics cannot excommunicate; that’s a juridic penalty that only the Church – for whom we claim authority – can do!

And God’s will always prevails despite ourselves.

Amen to that!

 

[MT1926]

The whole Christ participated in the human condition. He left his mission to human beings, and established something very human: an institution which is just as incarnate as he is.

I just wanted to point out that I totally agree with what you say here.

The thing I find though is unless you can get someone to come to an agreement on what authority actually is then there is no reason on talking about Catholic authority. Especially when the other persons definition of authority is simply indwelling of the holy spirit. Which in a nut shell means we all have the same authority.

Like Tim Staples says “if everyone has the authority then no one has the authority”. Which I think is the final objective of some.

That’s why I said “I don’t want to talk about Catholic Authority”. Because if you can’t first get someone to admit that Jesus left someone in charge then there is no sense in even trying to discuss who it is that Jesus left in charge.

It’s kind of like some of the discussions in this thread that oppose “Infallibility of the Church”. Well if they don’t first accept that Jesus left us a Visible, Living Breathing Church then it’s obvious that there is nothing you can say that will convince them the Church (which they already deny) can teach infallibly.

Gotta agree on basic definitions, of what Jesus authority looks like (is it visible or invisible?) before we can go any further.

God Bless